Slashdot Mirror
Chicago's Camera Network Is Everywhere
DesScorp writes "Over the past few years, the City of Chicago has installed video cameras all over the city. Now the Wall Street Journal reports that the city has not only installed its own cameras for law enforcement purposes, but with the aid of IBM, has built a network that possibly links thousands of video surveillance cameras all over Chicago. Possibly, because the city refuses to confirm just how many cameras are in the network. Critics say that Chicago is becoming the city of Big Brother. 'The city links the 1,500 cameras that police have placed in trouble spots with thousands more—police won't say how many—that have been installed by other government agencies and the private sector in city buses, businesses, public schools, subway stations, housing projects and elsewhere. Even home owners can contribute camera feeds. Rajiv Shah, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has studied the issue, estimates that 15,000 cameras have been connected in what the city calls Operation Virtual Shield, its fiber-optic video-network loop.' There are so many camera feeds coming in that police and officials can't monitor them all, but when alerted to a situation, can zoom in on the area affected. The ACLU has requested a total number of video feeds and cameras, but as of yet, this information has not been supplied."
London has been that way for years.
They're going to have to disclose them, sooner or later, if they want to use them as evidence.
With the cameras, wireless technology, and storage so cheap, I've got to think Chicago won't be the first. Some areas in Philly sure could use something like that.
The SBIR program issued several requests to do something similar in Bagdad, although I don't know if it ever got done.
They wanted the ability to see a car of bad-guys do something, and follow them in reverse-time back to their hideout.
That's 75 new high tech jobs created just in surveillance using existing infrastructure. Vote for the big brother stimulus package today!
"The world is a tragedy to those who feel, and comedy to those who think." -- Shakespeare
How would there be a comparison, the public does not know how many cameras are connected. The only number provided is a college professors estimate.
In that case, let me mount a camera pointed at your house. I'll be able to watch you come and go, I'll know when you're at home and when you're away, I'll sometimes catch glimpses of what you're doing through the windows, I can watch you in your sweaty glory while you're mowing your lawn, I can watch your friends and family when they come over (yay, Uncle Bob is there!), I'll know whenever you get a package from Amazon, with good enough resolution, I can probably even see who some of your mail is from. For good measure, I'll even record it all in case I want to go back later and watch something interesting.
Wouldn't that be great? You'd be able to rest easy while I'm always watching, knowing that you don't have to worry about being robbed.
*awesome* if Google does it; video will be streamed live to overlay on Google Earth and Street View images. It will happen. Privately owned cameras streaming feeds of public spaces (or privately owned spaces owned by the same organization as the feed) are legal and many exist in the form of security cameras, webcams. The technology to do it is almost available and if it can be done it will be done. Soon (many decades) all public space in major urban centers will be visible to anyone, anytime. Okay, maybe *awesome* and scary.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Although if I lived in Chicago, I would probably welcome greater surveillance as a deterrent to violent crime.
Might prove cheaper and more effective to end their obnoxious and unconstitutional ban on private handgun ownership.
Just sayin'
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Try the 2nd and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
... is not the cameras. In the US, wherever you go there are armed police who are allowed to shoot and kill you, for any reason they feel like. Fix that, then worry about CCTV cameras.
Agreed! Private handgun ownership is a great deterrent to violence.
In Fairbanks we all own handguns. We even have the right to carry them concealed (no permit required) anywhere w/ exception of federal buildings such as the courthouse, banks, & schools.
Point being, we have very little violent crime. Fairbanks is pretty redneck w/ no gangs. I doubt if gang members would last long here. Thinking of robbing everyone's favorite liquor store? You won't even make it out the door ..
I seriously doubt handgun ownership will work in Chicago though. I would imagine the population would be reduced dramatically overnight if handguns were permitted, which would also solve most of your crime problem, after you clean up the spent carcasses.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Point being, we have very little violent crime.
Yes, but you have man-eating grizzly bears, crazy maverick lipstick pigs, 10 months of winter and 2 months of cold weather. None of the criminals are desperate enough to live there.
[End Of Line]
So I'm curious how a city wide effort would work and what its results are.
Look at London - the effect appears to be that only a very small subset of crimes are affected, and those are primarily moved to 'blind-spots' between cameras. All the other sorts of crime continues on business as usual. Some will say that this happens because the criminals know that 99.99% of the time no-one is watching the cameras anyway. But, to me at least, that just seems like one more step down the slipperly slope. The same people were the ones saying that just having cameras would be a pancea itself - ultimately they will get to the point of arguing that the only way a bunch of cameras can make a significant difference is if we implement an extremely authoritarian regime to back them up and if that's the case they might as well just come clean and say big brother is the end game instead of boiling our frog.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That is one interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and since it supports the (corrupt) politicians' agenda (pacify the masses while hoarding as much wealth and power as possible), it is the currently supported interpretation. Needless to say, it is not the interpretation I believe the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Allow me to explain.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Yes, the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, state that a "well regulated militia" is the justification for this Amendment, but keep in mind that this was a radical concept when it was written. As well as stating the right they wanted to grant, they also included their justification for granting this right to the people. They then state that this militia is "necessary to the security of a free State." Consider for a moment what environment this amendment was written in: the framers of the Constitution were essentially planning treason against the Crown. Without the right to own firearms, there would have been no Revolutionary War because the only people that could possibly have fought would have been the British Army....makes for a very short Revolution, don't you think? To them, it was essential that free men have the right to keep and own weapons so that the people could replace the government when/if it became corrupt or oppressive, just like they did. Unfortunately, after 200 years, we have decided this only means that it is necessary to have a military force to protect the nation from foreign invaders, which is, of course, exactly what our politicians want.
The text of the 2nd Amendment continues, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." Not "the Army" nor even "the Militia", but the people. This is about as clear as it can get: this right is explicitly granted to the people of the United States of America. Seems to me if Washington and Jefferson and Franklin, etc., had intended this only to apply to militia members, they would have said, "...the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?!?!?!
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Get Elected?
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to shoot an innocent child. There is a difference.
Way more kids are killed in swimming pools than from firearms and nobody wants to ban those. Seriously, this is hardly a serious threat, and I can hardly support writing laws based on the hysterical screeching of someone who watches too much CNN.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.
Unfortunately, half the country hates corporations trying to control their lives, and the other half hates the government trying to control their lives, and so we've caught up into so much finger pointing that both corporations and the government control our lives.
This is my sig.
Why does it have to be stated anywhere? Owning and even operating (responsibly) a handgun doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights on any front.
Therefore you must come up with a reason why the constitution allows the government to restrict ownership since nowhere in the constitution is the power to regulate firearms ownership explicitly stated, and the 10th amendment specifically forbids the government from any powers not listed.
Also, the 2nd amendment further explicitly forbids the government from restricting ownership AND use of firearms.
Also, the 10th amendment probably means that the 2nd amendment applies to the states as well, considering the wording. And if it doesn't, the 14th does.
So, you'd better have a pretty solid legal theory that allows the government to do such.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Obama was not part of what is known as "Chicago machine politics".
Yeah, right. That's why Obama bought land for his Chicago house from Antoin "Tony" Rezko, at a ridiculously low price, with below market financing. Rezko was later sent to jail for corruption, fraud & bribery.
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?!?!?!
The part where their kid gets shot by someone bearing arms. (mods, please note, I'm not arguing a point about the constitution, I'm answering a question. Even though it was probably meant to be rhetorical, the question has real answers)
That's not a real answer. At least, it's not a very compelling one. The number of kids who are killed by firearms every year is very small. In 2006, for example (the most recent year for which the CDC's database has published data), 409 kids ages 0-14 were killed by firearms. That number includes deliberate homicides, suicides, accidents and deaths with undetermined intentions.
Of course, those 409 deaths are individually tragic, but compared to all of the other things that kill kids, firearms don't contribute significantly to child mortality. Heck, swimming pools kill nearly twice as many kids as firearms, and swimming pools are far, far behind automobiles. It should also be kept in mind that 3/4 of those deaths were homicides, mostly by adults, so even if there were no guns available many, perhaps most, of those children still would have died.
Weighed against the right of free people to defend themselves and their children, and their right to retain arms as a last-ditch defense against tyranny and invasion, those regrettable deaths simply don't measure up. Indeed it's not even unlikely that removing firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens might increase the deaths of children whose parents are unable to defend them. Even the Brady Campaign acknowledges that approximately 100,000 Americans defend themselves with a firearm each year, and other studies put the number up to 25 times higher.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.